`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNDER ARMOUR, INC.
`Petitioner,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`ADIDAS AG,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. IPR2015-00698
`U.S. Patent No. 8,092,345
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER ADIDAS AG’S NOTICE OF
`SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE ON DECEMBER 9, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b), Petitioner Under Armour, Inc., hereby
`
`objects as follows to the admissibility of evidence served with Patent Owner adidas
`
`AG’s Notice of Supplemental Evidence on December 9, 2015.
`
`
`
`Petitioner objects to Patent Owner filing Exhibits 2023 and 2024 before the
`
`Board. A party relying on evidence to which an objection is timely served may
`
`respond to the objection by serving supplemental evidence on the objecting party
`
`within ten business days of service of the objection. 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2); see
`
`also Avocent Hunstville Corp. v. Cyber Switching Patents, LLC, IPR 2015-00690;
`
`IPR2015-00725 (Oct. 2, 2015) (denying motion
`
`to submit supplemental
`
`information). Patent Owner filed the supplemental evidence, in violation of the
`
`Rules. In addition, Petitioner makes the following specific objections:
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`Exhibit 2023
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 9-11 of the exhibit include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show that
`
`the witness has personal knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 701/702/703: Paragraphs 10-11 of the exhibit include
`
`opinions that are not admissible under FRE 701, 702, or 703, or
`
`Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Evidence
`
`Objections
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 9-11 of the exhibit include
`
`statements that are inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`FRE 805: the exhibit contains improper hearsay within
`
`hearsay.
`
`Exhibit 2024
`
`FRE 402: the exhibit is not relevant to any ground upon which
`
`trial was instituted.
`
`FRE 602: Paragraphs 3-17 of the exhibit include assertions for
`
`which evidence has not been introduced sufficient to show that
`
`the witness has personal knowledge of the matters asserted.
`
`FRE 801/802: Paragraphs 3-17 of the exhibit include
`
`statements that are inadmissible hearsay if offered to prove the
`
`truth of any matter allegedly asserted therein.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Brian E. Ferguson/
`Brian E. Ferguson (Reg No. 36,801)
`Anish R. Desai (Reg. No. 73,760)
`Christopher T. Marando (Reg. No.67,898)
`W. Sutton Ansley (Reg. No. 67,828)
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`brian.ferguson@weil.com
`anish.desai@weil.com
`christopher.marando@weil.com
`sutton.ansley@weil.com
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Dated: December 15, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on December 15, 2015, the foregoing
`
`PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
`
`SERVED WITH PATENT OWNER ADIDAS AG’S NOTICE OF
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE ON DECEMBER 9, 2015 was served via
`
`electronic mail, upon the following:
`
`Mitchell G. Stockwell
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`mstockwell@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Wab P. Kadaba
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`Jonathan D. Olinger
`Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
`1100 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 2800
`Atlanta, GA 30309-4528
`jolinger@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`
`5
`
`/Timothy J. Andersen/
`Timothy J. Andersen
`Case Manager
`Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
`1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`T: 202-682-7000
`timothy.andersen@weil.com
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
